^ 



Holllnger 

pH8.5 

Mill Run F3.1719 



•^E 458 
C83 









1 '^'"V 1 ^' 

THE AMERICAN WAR:°1f 

Jfatts anb J'allittics. 



A SPEECH, 



DELIVERED BY 



HANDEL COSSHAM, Esq 

AT THE 

BROADMEAD ROOMS, BRISTOL, 

On Friday, February 12, 1864. 




BAKER <fc GODWIN, PRINTERS 

PRIKTCNG-UOCSE SQUARE, OPPOSITE CITY CALL. 

18G5. 




f 



THE AMERICAN WAE: 

Jfatts aiiti J'allaxics. 



A SPEECH 



DEUVERED BT 



HANDEL C08SHAM, Esq 



BROADMEAD ROOMS, BRISTOL, 



On Friday, February 12, 1864. 



BAKER & GODWIN, PRINTERS, 

PRINTING-HOUSE SqCARB, OPPOSITE CITy HALL. 
I860. 






. A- 



is 2/0 
'01 



C0 the Jfrieubs of Winmx in g^merua. 



The following lecture was delivered in England during the 
progress of the great struggle that for four years has been en- 
gaging the attention of the world. It was designed to be a 
reply to some of the absiu'd arguments used by the pro-slavery 
press of England in favor of the South, and was not intended 
for circulation in this country ; but, having been pressed by 
many of my American friends to reprint it, I have consented 
to do so, and now venture to lay it before the public on this 
side of the Atlantic, with an earnest hope that it may tend to 
promote peace and union between the two great branches of 
the Anglo-Saxon race, and, with many congratulations on the 
final and complete overthrow of the Slaveholders' Eebellion, 

I am, your obedient servant, 

HANDEL COSSHAM. 

New York, Sept. 7, 1865. 



THE AMERICAN WAR: 

FACTS AND FALLACIES. 



SPEECH 

BY HANDEL COSSHAM, Esq. 



On Friday evening, February 12tli, 1864, Mr. Handel Cossham 
delivered a Lecture at the Broadrnead-rooms, under the auspices of 
the Bristol Emancipation Society, on " the Facts and Fallacies rela- 
tive to the American War." The Chair was taken by Mr. H. O. 
Willis, and there was a crowded attendance. Amongst those pres- 
ent were the Rev. R. Morris, Rev. W. Jones, Mr. Jas. Wethered, 
Mr. Herbert Thomas, Mr. Saunders, Rev. T. Hacking, Uv. J. Har- 
ris, Rev. B. Jenkyn, Mr. W. Willis, Mr. J. Shipperlcy, Mr. Thomas 
Webster, Rev. W. Rose, Rev. H. Downs, Dr. Davy, Mr. John 
Hammond, Mr. G. Powell, and Mr. W. L. Harris. 

The Chairman briefly introduced the Lecturer, who said : 

My object to-night will be to place before you, in as condensed 
and clear a light as I can, the teachings and results of the present most 
unfortunate contest in America, and to call attention to some of the 
facts and fallacies which the discussion of the subject, during the last 
three years, has brought out ; and I think I shall not be presuming 
too much if I remark at the outset that we have had more mistakes 
made and more " unfulfilled prophecy " relative to the causes and 
probable results of the American war, than we have on any great 
subject of national interest during the last quarter of a century. The 
discussion of this question has developed an amount of ignorance rela- 
tive to the feelings, history, resources, and government of the United 
States, that I confess I was not at all prepared for, and that is not 



6 



very creditable to those who profess to guide the opinions of the people 
of this country. Thanks, however, to the natural instincts of the 
English people, and the kind of instinctive perception of right and 
wrong there is among the great masses of our countrymen, there has 
been from the beginning a large proportion, and I believe with Earl 
Russell, a large majority of people, who have refused to give their 
sympathy and aid to the efforts of the Southern States of America to 
establish a separate Government, with Slavery as its distinctive fea- 
ture, and human bondage as its " corner-stone." • 



I think I shall not be wrong also iu assuming, and in fact in assert- 
ing, that during the last twelve months there has been a vast change 
in public feeling on the question, and that there is at present much 
less sympathy felt in this country for the Southern Confederacy than 
there was ; and also that there is much less confidence felt as to the 
ultimate success of the rebellion. I have never made any secret of 
the fact that, from beginning to end, my sympathy has been with the 
North, during the present struggle — of course I do not mean^ that I 
sympathize with every act of the North, or would attempt to justify 
all they have done or left undone — but I rejoice in the conviction 
that the infamous attempt to create a great slave empire has failed, 
and that for the future the Government of the United States will be 
in favor of Liberty, and against Slavery. There are two reasons why 
I have felt so strongly and spoken so earnestly on the subject. 

1st. Because the South have never shown one tittle of legal or 
moral justification for this rebellion ; they could not say they had 
been oppressed, for the Government had been for fifty years almost 
entirely in their own hands, and the whole policy of the country had 
been framed to meet their views and wishes. In fact,they had paid far 
less and received far more from the Government than the North. 



2d. Another reason why I have felt that tlie South was not entitled 
to our sympathy was, because they appealed from reason and consti- 
tutional law to bullets and bloodshed. They refused to submit their 
case to the arbitration of argument and public opinion, and resolved 
to plunge their country into all the horrors of civil war rather than 
allow the system, that is condemned by the almost universal con- 



science of man, and the verdict of the whole civilized world, to be 
checked or confined. For the truth cannot be too frequently referred 
to, that, prior to the war, the North never claimed the right to touch 
Slavery. They admitted over and over again, that in the States where 
it existed it must go on, until the majorlt;/ in (hose Slates crmsenied to 
its ah^lition. This formed for years the great subject of controversy 
between the extreme Abolition party of the North, and the Republi- 
can party now in power. The Abolition section said, We claim the 
right for the Federal Government to deal with the subject of Slavery, 
and abolish it if they like in any State of the Union ; and if they have 
no such right then we prefer separation, and, in fact, secession. 
Politically, therefore, the secession doctrine of South Carolina, 
taught them by Calhoun, and the disunion doctrine held by Abo- 
litionists, and taught them by Mr. Lloyd Garrison, were identi- 
cal — morally, I admit they were as wide as the poles asunder — 
but politically, they were one ; and it is w-orth noticing that, 
up to the election of Mr. Lincoln, the party who talked most se- 
riously about secession was the Abolition party of the North. So long, 
however, as the South held the reins of Government, they denied the 
legality of the Abolition doctrine of secession ; which brought great 
odium upon and prejudice against that party, because of their sup- 
posed anti-national feelings. The Republican party, who date back 
to the year 1848, on the other hand, held that Slavery was an evil, 
but one that could not be dealt with by the Federal Government, 
except for the purpose of preventing its extension, and by bringing 
moral influence to bear upon the slaveholders, trying to induce them 
to consent to some plan of gradual abolition that would give them a 
fair equivalent for their loss. The idea of the Republican party was 
compensated, emancipation ; similar, in fact, to our own plan of aboli- 
tion in the West Indies. The Republican party contended that, under 
the Constitution, Slavery was local and not national, and their object 
was to keep it local ; while the Southern party were always trying 
to make, and almost succeeded in making it national, and thus secur- 
ing permanent support for it. Never let us forget that the Constitu- 
tion of the United States never recognized Slavery as a doctrine. It 
recognized it, I admit, as a fact, and permitted its existence. It was 
recognized by the American Constitution the same as polygamy was 
in the Jewish religion ; permitted, but not engrafted on the system. 
It was like the fungus that sometimes grows upon a tree ; it fastens 
itself upon the tree and sucks life from it, but never becomes a 



8 



part and parcel of the tree itself. The word Slave or Slavery does 
not occur in the American Constitution ; they have it " persons 
held to service : " this was not an accident, nor an oversight. The 
Fathers of the Eepublic held the truth that Slavery must die in 
presence of a republican government and popular liberty ; and hence 
they adopted a form of expression that would as much refer to the 
condition of an apprentice, or a person hired for a term, as to that 
of a slave. The great men who laid the foundation of the Ameri- 
can Government, saw the rock ; they had not the courage or the 
power at that time boldly to uproot the system of Slavery ; and they, 
therefore, tried to steer round the rock hy using an expression 
when speaking of Slavery that should not help to make the system 
perpetual ; so that the different States of America Avere, under the 
Constitution, able to deal with the question of Slavery, as they 
thought best. Hence, many of the Northern States that once held 
slaves, abolished the system ; and they were able to do so, because 
Slavery was no part of the Constitution. 



But what has the South done in framing their new Constitution ? 
They have made the institution of Slavery perpetual, and actually 
made it part of their Constitution that 7io law impairing or denying 
(he right of property in slaves shall be passed. This is the great, and 
I may almost say, the 07ily material difference between the old Consti- 
tution of the United States and that adopted by the Confederate 
States. Itis clear, therefore, that the ground of secession and the 
reason for separation is Slavery, and Slavery alone. 

But it is time I should refer to a few of the fallacies that have 
been attempted to be palmed upon the people of this country during 
the struggle, and 

I. 

We have been told that " the South are fighting for freedom 
and independence." A little reflection will, I think, show this to be a 
fallacy. What liberty had they ever been denied by the Union? 
Had they not liberty to speak, write, and vote as they liked 1 Is it 
not a fact that for years they held the reins of government of the 
Union ? Were not most of the Presidents of the Union chosen from 
the South ? And those who were elected from the North, were they 
not the tools and instruments in tho hands of Southern slaveholders ? 
What liberty, I ask again, was denied the South ? They not only voted 



9 



themselves but for their .slaveys in the proportion of tliree votes for five 
slaves. Prior to secession, in what part of the country was there 
most liberty ? Was it in tlie North or in the South? In the North, 
there M^as a free press, a free platform, free education, and a free 
pulpit; but in the South no man's life was worth twenty-four hours' 
purchase who dared to denounce Slavery. In which section of the 
country are there free schools and an educated working population 1 
I grant you that in the South the wealthy classes have been educated ; 
but I also assert that there the masses have been doomed to ignorance 
and neglect. The White population — " mean Whites," as they were 
arrogantly styled by the slavocracy — were cheated of intelligence 
and the Blacks were robbed of their rights; and yet, in face of these 
facts, we are told that the South are fighting for liberty and independ- 
ence. Yes, they are fighting for the same liberty that highwaymen 
and robbers would fight for — the right to rob those who are less 
powerful than themselves. The liberty for which the South are fighting 
is the liberty to live by the labor of others. They hate labor, and 
despise those who work ; while in the North industry is honored, 
labor is recognized and rewarded. The North live by their own 
labor: the South by the labor of unpaid, brutalized, and ill-used 
slaves. 

This aspect of the question appeals to the working-classes in all 
countries. If the South had succeeded in establishing and extending 
their accursed system of human bondage, they would have placed a 
brand upon industry, and helped to degrade labor in every par^ of 
the world. Our own working men of the North have seen this from 
the beginning ; and hence they have, from the first nobly said they 
would rather suffer than that labor should be degraded. I repeat, the 
liberty for which the South are fighting is the liberty to tyrannize 
over, to brutalize, and to degrade those who labor ; and yet tWs is 
the cause, and these are the objects, that a large number of our public 
men, and a still larger number of our public writers, ask us to sympa- 
thize with and support. The liberty that the South want is the same 
as King Bomba wanted, and the same that the Pope and Russia want 
to-day — the liberty to oppress and to degrade. Away with such 
liberty ! and away, too, with such teaching ! and in its place let us 
help to plant the tree of liberty brought from Heaven by the Divine 
founder of our holy religion, and embodied in that glorious charter of 
human rights — " As ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so 
to them." 



10 



I am told by some that the only objects for which the North 
are fighting are dominion and the Union ; that they are not 
fighting at all to put down Slavery. I admit, without reserve, that 
the abolition of Slavery was no( the avowed object of the war ; it could 
not be ; it would have been illegal, and, I believe, it would have been 
immoral to try to abolish Slavery by war. 1 have no idea that we 
ought to attempt to do good by using means that are in themselves' 
ivil ; but I do contend that every government is bound to enforce its 
laws and to maintain its authority. No government has a right to 
allow armed resistance to its laws, and especially when those laws, 
are the result of popular opinion. There maybe some disadvantages 
connected with i-epublican government based on universal suffrage, 
but at any rate it has one advantage : No man can say that he is not 
at liberty to give practical effect to his opinions, and to exert all the 
influence to which he is entitled over the laws and-institutions of his 
country. 

If the South held the doctrine of secession as a fixed principle, 
how is it that they did not apply the principle prior to Mr. Lincoln's 
election ? Why did they, in November, 1860, use their utmost 
power, and put forth all their strength, to elect a Southern President % 
Does any man in his senses believe there would have been any 
secession if either of the Southern candidates had been elected 1 No, 
let the truth be told, that the South did not secede till they were 
beaten by a popular vote ; that they used all the power that the consti- 
tution gave them to secure an executive favorable to Slavery, and, 
failing in that resolve, they resisted by force a government elected by 
the people that had done them no wrong ; for secession was a fait 
iicompli before the Republican party were in power, or had done 
a single act, or passed a single law. No oppression, no injustice, no 
wrong can be alleged ; all the South can urge in justification of the 
crime they committed against their country and humanity, is that they 
failed in the attempt to elect a President favorably to the extension of 
Slavery. 

Was the North justified in trying to uphold the conslituLioii and 
laws of their country ? Mind, I am not now asking whether it would 
have been better for them to try and make some arrangement, 
and allow the South to go; that may be a point worthy of inquiry ; 
and such is my love of peace, that, had I been a citizen of the States, I 
think I should have counseled peaceful secession rather than war. But 



11 

that is not the point ; 1 have no right to expect the American Govern- 
ment to do what I know our own would not do. Will you tell 
me what portion of the British Empire you would allow to secede 
peaceably ? Would you allow India to secede ? The war of 1857, 
with all its bloody atrocities and cruelties, is an answer to that. 
Would you allow Ireland to secede? She has repeatedly wanted to 
do so ; she has at any rate serious grounds uf complaint — in an absent 
proprietary, a starving and gradually diminishing population, a state 
church forced upon the people contrary to the will of the great major- 
ity. These are real grievances and wrongs. But suppose Ireland, on 
the ground of these wrongs, asks to secede, what is your reply ? Why 
that Ireland is an integral part of this country ; that, if it wants any 
alterations made in its laws and institutions, it must take the constitu- 
tional course for obtaining those alterations ; and that any attempt to 
secede will be met with the whole armed force of the country — Would 
you allow the counties south of the Thames to secede ? — and if they 
attempted to do so, do you think our government would use no force 
to prevent it ? Now I contend that India, or Ireland, or the Southern 
Counties of England, have just as much legal right to secede, as the 
Southern States of America. I am sure I am not misinterpreting the 
feeling and sentiment of the English government and people in saying 
this ; — and further, I would assist the Government in its determina- 
tion to put down rebellion. I would do all I could to counsel concil- 
iation, by the removal of all proved grievances and wrongs; but I 
believe it to be for the interest of all that there should be no armed 
yesistance to the authority of government and the supremacy of law. 
Though I am, as you are aware, opposed to the union of Church and 
State, if there was any attempt to break that Union by force, I would 
oppose it to the utmost of my power, and should uphold the Govern- 
ment in their efforts to suppress such a rebellion. On such grounds, I 
stand here to-night to maintain the right of the American Government 
to uphold their authority and io maintain in its integrity their country. 
They are, as you say, fighting for the Union ; but what does the 
Union mean ? It means the right of self-government ; it means free- 
dom of speech, freedom of the press, the exaltation of labor, and I 
rejoice to add, the liberation and recognition of the manhood of four 
millions of degraded slaves. In the maintenance of such a Union I 
rejoice, and pray that God may prosper it. 

in. 
But I may be told that it is impossible— that there can be Union for 



12 



the future, seeing that such a state of antagonism and ill-feeling has 
been produced by the war. Now I grant that, if this was a war of the 
whole people of the North against the whole population of the South, 
there would be much force in the argument; but a moment's 
reflection will teach you that such is not the fact, and that the very 
opposite is much nearer the truth. Let me ask you to consider, first, 
that the territory now held by the South, and which I rejoice to add 
is barely two-thirds of what they held three years ago — the area held 
by the Confederates in 1861 being over 800,000 square miles, with a 
free population of six and a half millions, and a slave population of 
three and a half millions, but now they only hold a territory of 
500,000 square miles, a free population of a little over two millions, 
and a slave population of two and a half millions — in this territory, 
under the iron despotism and crushing tyranny of the Southern Con- 
federacy, there is now nearly as large a population of slaves as of free- 
men. I wonder whether they are in favor of secession ! Do you 
think it likely that they would vote for the perpetuation of human 
bondage and a Confederacy founded on Slavery ? Then, if not, what 
becomes of your notion that there is a United South? How can it be 
said that the North are trying to oppress the South, when the 
advance of the Federal flag carries liberty to half the population and 
*•' the opening of prison-doors to those who are bound ? " 

But, again, — is it true that even the White population of the South 
are united in favor of secession 1 If so, how is it that, after Mr. 
Lincoln's election, every State in the South voted against seces- 
sion except South Carolina 1 I stand here to assert that such 
was the fact, and that the Southern candidate that was in favor 
of Union and Slavery received a much larger vote than the can- 
didate that was in favor of secession. Nay, more, — I stand here 
to assert that several of the Southern States were coerced into se- 
cession, and that the lives of many of the State governors and mem- 
bers of the State Legislatures were threatened if they did not vote in 
favor of secession. The argument of the South has generally been 
the bludgeon and the bowie-knife ; and they used both freely to bring 
about secession. And, further, notwithstanding all the attempts to 
suppress the truth, and to prevent the spread of information, we hear, 
coming up from various parts of the South, sounds that do not look 
much like entire union in the doctrine of secession. It seems very 
likely that North Carolina will secede from secession, and that, unless 
the South makes terms with the North, they wnll very soon make the 
best terms they can on their own account. The honest and manly 



13 

confession of Gen. Gantt, of Arkansas, lately a General in the Con- 
federate army, is very significant : he admits that he took up the 
sword to'extcnd Slavery, and thought the North would not contest 
the point; but that now he sees the cnuse of the South is hopeless 
and Slavery doomed, — and further, let me ask you to note that wher- 
ever the Northern armies have gone they have received, compara- 
tively, no opposition from the native population. Missouri, Ken- 
tucky, Western Virginia, Tennessee, Mississippi, Arkansas, and 
Louisiana, have mainly'been cleared of Confederate armies: and what 
is the result ? Why, that a feeling is at once evoked in favor of Union ; 
and I am also glad to say in favor of abolition. Such, then, being 
the facts, I contend that there is no ground for the assertion that the 
whole population of the South are in favor of secession, and that they 
can only be held in subjection by military rnle. 

I assert again, the only cause of quarrel between the two sections 
of the country is Slavery; remove thai, and there will be Union. 
The whole interest of the country is in favor of Union and peace, and 
Union without Slavery will be a reality and not a sham. 



Another fallacy that has been rather popular in this country, is 
that the cause of the slave would be benefited, and the doom of 
Slavery would be rendered more certain, by separation. Those who 
thus argue tell us that the Union has covered and protected Slavery 
in the past, that colored people are despised and ill-treated in the 
North, and that the only chance they have of freedom is by the 
separation of the North and South. I think there are many persons 
who sincerely hold this opinion, though by what process of reasoning 
they have come to such a conclusion I confess I am at a loss to under- 
stand. Suppose I admit, for the sake of argument, that separation 
would induce the North to repeal the fugitive-slave law (it has been 
practically repealed there for some years) : Suppose they opened 
their arms to every slave that crossed the border and placed the pro- 
tection of their flag over the fugitive. Let me ask you to think how 
this would operate upon the condition of the slave. First, how much 
more rigid would be the supervision that would be exercised over 
him ! How closely he would be watched ! What thousands would 
be murdered in the attempt to escape ! The whole of the Border 
States would be filled with blood-hounds, and man-hunters, always 
watching for their prey ; and then again, how unhappy would be the 



14 



condition of the poor fugitive when he got North ! Naturalized as 
he is to a Southern climate, it would be like exposing a tender tropi- 
cal plant to the bleak winds and nipping frosts of the frigid zone. 
The proper home, the natural residence, of the Black population is 
South; and I believe that, instead of separation leading to greater free- 
dom to the negro race, it would lead to their destruction. 

And let me also ask you to remember that separation would im- 
ply large standing armies on both sides, each Avatching the other. 
This would necessitate a vastly increased system of taxation, and a 
consequent advance on the cost and price of all the productions of 
America, which would be nothing more nor less than a tax upon all 
the nations of Europe now dependent upon America for raw mate- 
rials. 

You ask why could there not be separation and peace? And my 
reply is, because the two sections would have two entirely distinct 
and separate social systems. It is possible for nations to adopt dif- 
ferent joo//</c«/ systems and live at peace. You may have a monarch- 
ical government on one side of a line, and a republican government 
on the other, without war, or even with'out that friction and irritation 
that too often lead to war. But you cannot have two systems side 
by side, divided only by a line drawn on paper, so utterly at variance 
as Freedom and Slavery, without constant war. There are no nat- 
ural geographical divisions, no great mountain ranges or broad seas 
to divide them ; but Slavery and Freedom, standing side by side, al- 
ways in collision, always rubbing one against the other. I say with- 
out hesitation that, so long as human nature is what it is, it would be 
impossible to have a state of things like that without leading to con- 
stant war. 

But I am told that the South would abolish Slavery if let alone. 
"Where is the proof of it, I ask ? Are they not at this moment hesi- 
tating about the exchange of prisoners, because they refuse to treat 
colored men as prisoners of war ? Do they not persistently refuse 
to treat as a man, every human being with a black skin ? Is it not a 
fact, that they either shoot in cold blood or sell into brutal bondage, 
every colored soldier they can catch? and that they have openly pro- 
claimed their intention to shoot, or hang, every officer who dares lead 
a black regiment in the field 1 Are these the evidences upon which 
you rely, to prove the disposition of the South to abolish Slavery ? 
If 80, you are, I confess, rather gullible. 



16 



Another fallacy thai has been popular during the discussion of the 
American war, lias been this : — That the country was too large, and 
that it would be better for England and the world, that there should be 
a separation. I think this feeling has been widely entertained, and 
has greatly- helped to produce that moi-al squint relative to the 
American question, that I am here to-night to fry to counteract. In 
reply to this fallacy, allow me first to remind you, that the policy of 
America in the past has not been an aggressive policy ; while I be- 
lieve they could and would defy the world in vindication of their own 
rights and national honar, yet they are weak and comparatively 
powerless for aggressive warfare ; and therefore, their growth and 
prosperity was no menace to Europe. Prior to the outburst of the 
present war, their army and navy were so small that they could only 
be regarded as a police force, and could be no object of dread to other 
nations. Allow me to remind you, that the whole army they could 
legally have prior to secession, only consisted of 25,000 men, and the 
real numbers they had at command were only 18,000; and further, 
it is well known that their traditional policy, from the time that they 
became a nation, has been to avoid all interference with the affairs of 
other nations. They have been especially careful to avoid, and I 
think wisely so, entangling themselves in the affairs of Europe ; their 
motto has been — Trade tvith all, but alliance ivith none; and hence, 
for the past seventy-five years, no one can say that American growth, 
or American prosperity, has endangered the peace of the world. 

But there is another side to this question I should like to call your 
attention to, and that is, that any aggressive policy that has been de- 
veloped in the history of America, such as the dishonest annexation 
of Texas, and the conduct of the American government toward 
Mexico, has been the result of Southern and not Northern policy. 
The North has always been against the acquisition of fresh territory ; 
the South has been favorable to it. The fact is, that Slavery so im- 
poverishes a country that it needs a constant accession of land in 
order to allow the infernal system to spread. If you hedge round 
Slavery, it is like putting a bowl over a light : it soon dies out. To 
tie a cord round it is to strangle it ; and to circumscribe it is to atop 
up its breathing-hole and stifle the reptile. Sympathy with the South, 
therefore, means sympathy with the party, and the only party in 
America, in favor of an aggressive policy, and, therefore, of the only 



16 



policy likely to be prejudicial to the interests of England and the 
world. 

But 1 also want you to remember that Slavery is prejudicial to 
the interests of commerce and of our own prosperity. What, let me 
ask, is it that we want now to raise England higher in the scale of 
nations? We want more customers for our manufactures, and more 
demand for the products of our industry. We have the skill, the 
capital, the raw- material, to manufacture, double, treble, ay, quadru- 
ple the quantity we now produce ; but we lack markets and custom- 
ers. And how is our market to be extended and cultivated ? Re- 
member, there are no more continents to be discovered; no more 
nations to be found ; and we must increase our market by promoting a 
higher civilization and a higher social status; for, as you raise men, 
you create wants that help to promote commerce and extend trade. 
The savage and the slave require but little of the commerce of the 
world to supply their wants. They have no ambition and no wants, 
except those of a mere animal kind ; and to keep them in this condi- 
tion is to rob the world of some of its best customers and society of 
prosperity. 

The success of the South means the perpetual degradation of a 
whole race, and the robbing England and the world of the advantage 
which would certainly arise from the civilization and uplifting of the 
African race. Two-thirds of the population of the South have been 
in times past so degraded and brutalized that their wants were " like 
angel's visits, few and far between : " a little shoddy, some whips, a 
few cat-o'-nine-tails, some tar-brushes, handcuffs, chains and blood- 
hounds, made up the total requirements of the South. Separation 
and secession mean the perpetuation of this wrong ; Union means its 
destruction : and therefore I contend that the commercial interest of 
England is bound up with Union and Abolition. Let the poor slaves 
o^ America become free; let the "mean White" population learn to 
labor and to support themselves by honest industry ; and then we 
shall have a new race of customers springing up to create a demand 
for our manufactures, and to enrich us by their commercial relations. 



But 1 am told that we sliould sympathize with the cause of 
the South, because they are for free trade, while the North are for 
protection. The friends of the South in this country have even gone 
so far as to assert that the war had its origin in protective duties and 



17 

absurd tariffs. I am huppv to be in a position to give that statement 
a most unqualified denial, and I venture to challenge any of the pro- 
slavery party in this country, from Mr. Spence of Liverpool, who 
has been specially letained, at a heavy fee, to plead the 'cause of the 
South, down to Lord Wharncliffe, who is the President of the so-called 
" Southern Independence Association," to point out one tariff imposed 
prior to the secession of the South by the votes of Northern states- 
men, against the will of the Southern statesmen. Nay, more : I stand 
here to assert, and if necessary to prove, that even the restrictive 
tariffs that have been unwisely, as I believe, imposed by the Govern- 
ment of America, have been imposed by a majority of Southern 
votes, and against a minority of Northern ones, as the following facts 
will show. The following are the votes of the Congress on the va- 
rious tariff bills, and show that the South might have prevented any 
of these measures from becoming law. had they wished to do so : 

Tariff of 1789, passed unanimously. 

Tariff of 1790 — House of Representatives, Northern, 18 yeas, 12 
nays ; Southern, 22 yeas, 8 nays — 18, 42. Senate unanimous. 

Tariff of 1792 — House of Representatives, Northern, 26 yeas, 4 
.nays; Southern, 11 yeas, 16 nays — 26, 31. Senate unanimous. 

Tariff of 1794 — House of Representatives and Senate unanimous. 

Tariff of 1797 — House of Representatives, Northern, 39 yeas, 10 
nays ; Southern, 27 yeas, 1 1 nays — 39, 48. Senate unanimous. 

Tariff of 1804 — House of Representatives unanimous. Senate, 
Northern, 8 yeas, 5 nays; Southern, 12 yeas, nays — 8, 17. 

War Tariff of 1812 — House of Representatives, Northern, 35 
yeas, 33 nays; Southern, 41 yeas, 15 nays — 35, 89. Senate, North- 
ern, 1^ yeas, 6 nays ; Southern, 12 yeas, 4 nays — 10, 22. 

Manufacturing Tariff of 1816 — House of Representatives, North- 
ern, 63 yeas, 15 nays ; Southern 25 yeas, 39 nays — 63,79. N. B. 
J. C. Calhoun voted for. Senate unanimous. 

Tariff of 1824 — House of Representatives, Northern, 86 yeas, 32 
nays; Southern, 19 yeas, 70 nays — 86, 121. Senate unanimous. 

Tariff of 1828 — House of Representatives, Northern, 88 yeas, 29 
nays; Southern, 17 yeas, 65 nays — 88, 111. Senate, Northern, 19 
yeas, 4 nays; Southern, 6 yeas, 17 nays — 19, 27. 

Tariff of 1832— House of Representatives, Northern, 73 yeas, 35 
nays; Southern, 49 yeas, 30 nays— 73, 114. Senate, Northern, 23 
yeas, 1 nay ; Southern, 9 yeas, 15 nays — 23, 25. 

Compromise TaritTof 1833 — House of Representatives, Northern, 

a 



18 



35 yeas, 81 nays ; Southern, 84 yeas, 4 nays — 35, 169. Senate, 
Northern, 10 yeas, 13 nays; Southern, 19 yeas, 3 nays — 10, 35. 

Tariff of J842— House of Representatives, Northern, 89 yeas, 28 
nays; Southern, 16 yeas, 75 nays — 89,119. Senate, Northern, 19 
yeas, 5 nays ; Southern, 5 yeas, 18 nays — 19, 28. 

Reduction Tariff of 1846— House of Representatives, Northern, 
50 yeas, 73 nays ; Southern, 64 yeas, 22 nays. Senate, Northern, 10 
yeas, 16 nays; Southern, 18 yeas, 11 nays. 

Reduction Tariff of 1857 — House of Representatives, Northern, 
60 yeas, 05 nays; Southern, 63 yeas, 7 nays. Senate, Northern, 14 
yeas, 9 nays; Southern, 19 yeas, 3 nays. 

Increased Tariff of 1861 (Morrill) was voted after several of the 
Southern States had seceded ; and therefore was the consequence and 
not the cause of secession. 

I think it is abundantly plain, from the above indisputable facts, 
that the South might at any period, have prevented the passing of 
any of the tariff measures, if so disposed. I readily admit that the 
North has been too much under the influence of the delusion, which, 
by-the-by, was rather popular in this country twenty years ago, that 
protective duties help t(* strengthen and stimulate those branches of 
industry protected. The iron and wool manufacturers of the Noith 
have always been, and for aught I know, are still, blindly and fool- 
ishly in favor of protection. But I have it on authority, which I have 
no ri«fht to question, that, prior to the outbreak of the present war, 
the North were fast progressing toward free trade doctrines ; and that 
the restoration of the Union, so far from retarding the advance of 
free trade in America, will help to realize, what I am sure we all de- 
sire, namely, entire freedom of interchange between America and the 
rest of the world ; so that the raw materials which that country can 
produce to such an enormous extent, may be exchanged for-«,the man- 
ufactured goods of other nations. What becomes, then, of the argu- 
ment in favor of recognizing the South, that has been attempted to be 
palmed upon ns on free trade grounds? I think you will agree with 
me that any argument founded on such misapprehension and error, 
is undeserving the attention of thoughtful, reflective, and truth-loving 
men. 



There is another fallacy rel.itive to the American question, 
which I must really apologize for troubling you with. It is so mani- 
festly absurd, that 1 wonder tliat even Lord AYharncliffc could have 



19 

been guilty of rcferriuir to it. That I may not misrepresent the 
matter, I will state the objections in his lordship's own words. "The 
South," said his lordship some time ago, at one of those hole-and-cor- 
ner meetings which seem to best suit the advocates of a government 
based on Slavery, " The South hud hitherto labored under the impu- 
tation that they by their jyroceedinys were tending to support the exist, 
ence of slavery ; and this," adds his lordship, " is an impression which 
they ought to be careful fo remove." I quite agree M'ith his lordship : 
There is this impression pretty generally entertained. I plead guilty 
to the imputation of believing that the " tendency of the South is to 
support Slavery ; " and I base that opinion upon the facts — 

1st. That they have, or lately had, four millions of slaves in their 
midst ; that, in order to retain them as slaves, they denied to them 
the rights of citizenship, doomed them to ignorance, treated them 
with barbarity and cruelty, and did all they could to lower and debase 
them. 

2d. I declare it as my belief that to extend and perpetuate this 
system, with all its hateful concomitants, the South rebelled against 
the constitution and laws of their country, and involved their nation 
in one of the most barbarous and wicked wars of modern times ; and, 

3d. I contend that, during the progress of the war, the South has 
persistently refused every measure tending toward the freedom of 
their slaves. Are they not now refusing to exchange prisoners, be- 
cause the North insists that black soldiers shall be treated as prisoners 
of war, and neither be sold into slavery, nor shot in cold blood 1 I 
honor the North for resolving to compel the South to do this. If they 
employ colored men in their armies, they are bound, in honor, to 
extend over them such protection and care as the rules of war 
permit. 

With these facts before me, then, I admit that it does look to me 
as though the South has " a tendency to support Slavery." When I 
hear that they have ceased to fight in defence of Slavery ; when I 
hear that they show any signs of being willing to loosen their grasp 
on t'.ie victims of their oppression ; when they open their country- 
even to the discussion of the subject of Slavery ; and when they re- 
peal that clause in their constitution forbidding the right to prohibit 
Slavery in future ; when, I say, they do this, then I shall gladly admit 
that the " tendency " of the South is not to Slavery but to fieedom. 
But, till then, the South must bear all the odium that attaches to a 
people fighting in defence of the most infamous system that Satan ever 



20 



devised— and Lord WharnclifTe, and those who support him. must not 
wonder if their names go down to posterity as the names of men who, 
by their words and deeds, did all they could to rivet on the necks of 
an oppressed race more firmly the chains of Slavery — and to give 
nationality and perpetuality to a system condemned by Christianity, 
by reason, and by the almost universal conscience of the world. 

While making these remarks and speaking thus strongly on the 
sin, as I think it, of aiding and sympathizing with the South, let 
me say most distinctly that I have no Avisli to see the South injured 
or crushed. From my heart I believe the South has suffered more 
from Slavery than the North. The North, has suffered in moral char- 
acter ; but the South has suffered in commercial prosperity as well as 
character ; for, remember, while Slavery may have enriched Sifew, it 
has impoverished and degraded the many, I believe if Slavery is 
abolished, the South will realize a state of prosperity equal to that 
realized by the North in the past. I believe that those are the real 
friends of the South, as well as the best friends of humanity, who 
labor to convince even the prejudiced minds of slaveholders, that they 
are hugging the viper that is feeding upon their" vitals, and destroying 
their national life. 

Let me here call your attention to a point not sufficiently noticed : 
namely, that there are certain States of the South only interested in 
Slavery incidejitally and remotely, such as the States of Delaware, 
Maryland, Virginia, Kentucky, Missouri, part of Tennessee, and North 
Carolina. These are all farming and slave-breeding States. They 
have no plantations, or, at any rate, very few, cultivated by slaves. 
They breed slaves for sale to the more Southern States of South 
Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas 
and Arkansas. The plantation States are in favor, and have always 
been in favor, of the African Slave-Trade. The former, on the other 
hand, are opposed to that trade, because it would tend to knock down 
the value of human stock. The Gulf States contend that it is very hard 
upon them to be obliged to pay from $1,000 to $1,500 for slaves from 
neighboring States, when they might get as good from Africa for 150 or 
; and here 1 must remark, that I believe the imporjation of 
slaves from Virginia and other States is more cruel, more wicked, and 
is attended with more horror than the importation of slaves from 
frica. When you bring them from Africa, you bring them from a 
aavage state : they have had none of the tender symphathies 
awakened that contact with civilization and religion is sure to 



21 



engender. The slaves sent south from Virginia and other States, 
have many of them joined Christian churches, formed social ties, and 
cultivated strong personal attachments. These are all rudely severed 
and broken by the severance of parents from children, and husbands 
from wives : Virginia alpne generally breeds and sends South 10,000 
slaves a year, and sometimes receives ten million dollars a year for 
their human cattle. Only think of the idea of breeding human 
beings, for whom Christ died, to sell ! What language can I use strong 
enough to denounce such a trade 1 Any how, can I help speaking 
strongly relative to the conduct of those who are trying to betray us 
into a partnership in crime, with those who are endeavoring to 
perpetuate the wrong 1 



There is another fallacy which I must refer to, or I shall be 
accused of failing to face the strongest point raised by the pro-slavery 
party. Mr. Lincoln, they say, is not sincere ; he cares nothing for the 
slave, and only takes up the cause of the slave from political motives. 
Well, suppose I admit all l^his, for the sake of argument : what then '? 
Are we to refuse to sympathize with a great object because some of 
the men who support it are not sincere ? Would you ask me to 
sympathize with protection, because some of the men who advocated 
free trade did it from selfish motives 1 I think not. 

Remember, this is not a question dependent on Mr. Lincoln's sin- 
cerity or otherwise : it is an antagonism between systems, not men. 
Whatever Mr. Lincoln may say, or do, will not affect materially the 
issue. If the North prevails, Slavery falls; and if the South prevails, 
Freedom falls. That is the real point at issue. Disguise it as we 
may, evade it as we may, sympathy with the South means sympathy 
with human oppression, sympathy with the overthrow of constitutional 
government and law. It means sympathy with tyranny in its worst 
forms, and wrong in its most hideous aspects. 

But I am far from admitting that Lincoln is not sincere. Where 
is the proof of his insincerity 1 Every act of his official life has 
proved him to be true to his promises, true to the principles of his 
party, and above all, true to the interests of the slave : he has grown 
in Anti-Slavery faith since his accession to office — he has not done 
like some Governments I could name, climbed into office under the 
pretense of zeal for certain principles, and then turned round and 
kicked those principles over — he has not receded one step in the 



Anti-Slavery patli in whicli he and the Republican party are walking ; 
on the contrary, he and his party are evidently growing in the 
conviction, 1st. That Slavery is the cause of all their national troubles; 
and, 2nd. That there will be no peace, no Union, and no prosperity, 
till Slavery is entirely eradicated and uprooted. 

IX. 

Allow me to refer to another fallacy we often hear on this subject, 
namely, that the condition of the colored men in the North is as bad as 
that of the slaves in the South. I regret to say that, on several occa- 
sions, our senior member of Parliament, Mr. Berkeley, has given 
utterance to this statement. But I venture to say that, if the honor- 
able member would try Slavery in the South during one of the Par- 
liamentary recesses, he would return a wiser, and on this question, a 
better man. It is the old story our fathers had a fight over thirty years 
ago. We were told then that the slave was better off as a slave than 
he would be free. 

I am not here to say that the conduct of the Northern people in 
times past has been all that it should have been toward the Black race, 
it has often been wanton and wicked. It is one of the sad catalogue 
•of evils resulting from Slavery that, if you degrade a race by oppres- 
sion, you make them odious in the eyes of their oppressors ; — this has 
been illustrated in a sad way by the treatment of the colored people 
in the North in past times. 

But, though the North is not yet perfect in its treatment 
of colored people, it is progressing toward a practical recognition of 
the truth " that God has made of one blood all nations." 

The riots at New York are pointed to as an illustration of 
Northern treatment of the man of color. Why it would be as fair to 
charge upon us the results of the Bristol riots of 1832, as to charge 
upon the people of New York the sad results of the late outrages 
there. Those riots were got up by Southern sympathizers, and stim- 
ulated by Southern money. I regret to say that the most prominent 
actors in the affair were Irishmen ; and it is notorious that no class in 
America have such an antipathy to colored people as the Irish. They 
hate -them with a perfect hatred, and are almost to a man in fiivor of 
Slavery, because they think that the result of abolition would be to 
bring the Black race North to compete with them in the labor market ; 
whereas the very opposite would probably be the result. 
The Black people now in the North would most probably go South, 
■where the climate and work best suit their constitutions and habits. 



23 

But let me ask you to noto liow New York acted, directly the 
riots were suppressed. They at once collected 50 000 dollars to 
relieve the distress caused by the riots among the colored people ; 
the lawyers, to their honor bo it spctken, combining to offer to make 
good all claims for compensation on the part of the poor Blacks for 
property lost by the riots, free of charge. Lawyers really do so little 
without a fee, that I refer to this as a peculiar illustration of benevo- 
lence and right feeling. Does this look as though the condition of 
free Blacks in the North was worse than that of slaves in the South, as 
asserted by Mr. Berkeley? The honorable member knows, or ought 
to kiiow, that no colored man dares to own property in the South. 
He does not own his wife ; he does not own his children ; he dares 
not even own himself. On the contrary, in the North, the same laws 
protect both ; the same schools, with few exceptions, are open to both ; 
the same px'otection, now that the North is free from Southern influ- 
ence, is afforded to both. I admit it has not always been so, but I 
assert that it is so now to an almost universal extent. In New York 
alone, property of the value of ten millions of dollars is ow^ied by 
colored people ; and they are constantly increasing in wealth. Mr. 
Fred. Douglass, a colored gentleman, is now in the service of the 
United States Government ; and the same Government has resolved 
to compel the South to recognize the equality of colored soldiers, or 
else to decline any further exchange of prisoners. This does not look 
as though Freedom in the North was as bad as Slavery in the 
South. 

I have no doubt that the change from Slavery to Freedom will 
be attended with suffering. The path to the Promised Land lay 
through a wilderness of discipline ; and so the negro race in America 
are being brought through the Bed Sea of war and a wilderness of 
sorrow into the land of freedom and prosperity. 



Let me refer to one more fallacy, and I have done. Oh ! 
say some of our public teachers, this horrible war, how dreadful 
it is ! when will it end 1 Gentlemen, I need not say, I have no sym- 
pathy with war ; but the inconsistency is, that this cry comes chiefly 
from those who defended every war in which we have engaged for the 
last twenty years — Indian wars, China wars, Kussian wars, Japanese 
wars. New Zealand wais, &c., tfcc. It does luuk to me almost ridicu- 
lous to hear such gentlemen hold ud their hands in horror of war in 



u 



America, when they always defend war at home. War is almost the 
greatest calamity that can befall a country ; and I will also add 
that those who involve countries in war, deserve the execration of all 
who love God and humanity. 

Let me ask you, who began this American war? It was not the 
North ; it was the South. They fired the first shot at Fort Sumter ; 
they appealed from reason to bloodshed ; and now, having taken the 
sword to defend Slavery — I say, as " Slavery took the sword, let it 
perish by the sword ; " and perish it will. I am not a prophet; but 
I venture to predict that the Southern rebellion is digging a grave 
that will forever bury this accursed system ; and I also believe an- 
other result will follow the war, that some of the enemies of Progress 
and Reform in this country intensely dread ; and that is, the complete 
and entire reconstruction of the Union. 

I now leave the subject with you. I speak warmly, because I feel 
deeplv on the question. I confess 1 am pained to see a want of 
sympathy between this country and America. There are men, and 
oro-ans of public opinion, on both sides of the Atlantic, who seem bent 
upon setting, if possible, these two great Anglo-Saxon nations at 
variance and war. Gentlemen, I protest against this course. No 
man can commit a greater crime against both countries than to mis- 
represent them, and thus help to produce discord and strife. We 
ought to try and keep peace with the world. But we ought espe- 
cially to try and keep peace with America ; and America ought to do 
the same with England. There must be no strife between us : we 
are brethren. 

What I ask, then, to-night, is perfect and absolute neutrality on 
the part of our Government. I do not ask that our Government 
should lend a particle of material aid to the North ; and I protest 
against their rendering the slightest to the South. Our motto should 
be. Neutrality from the Government, and moral sympathy for the 
North from ourselves in the great struggle in which they are en- 
gaged. [Great applause.] 

Dr. Davt proi)Oscd, and the Rev. T. Hacking seconded, a vote of thanks 
to the lecturer, who, in responding, proposed a similar compliment on be- 
half of the Chairman. 

An individual from the middle of the room said tliat he had lived in 
the States for fifteen years, and he could endorse Mr. Cossham's statements. 



„-ov OF CONGRESS 



llSy 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



012 027 985 3 



a 



